Jump to content

Leica Q or Leica CL?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, Signor Bucci,

I have been a happy (Q + D-Lux) combo  vagabond, travelling the world  with a backpack,  who drifts now to (Q + CL) with a couple of extra lenses pair.  Btw, you and I have something in common: I used to be a Canon SLR fellow for many years.

Regards and best luck to you.

AK

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Sorry for resurrecting this 4 year old thread, but maybe the question is still relevant. Well, it is to me right now. I have a Q and I love the image quality I get from it. It got me to buy an SL2-S after all. The Q is my everyday/travel camera next to the SL for more work-related photography.

I kinda like the Q and it has the sentimental value of being my first Leica, I just don't like the 28mm. I already thought about getting an M240, but that would mean getting into another system beside my SL and Sony Alpha. And even if I sell the Q I would have to pay some extra for the even older M240.
So now I look at the CL. Same mount as the SL, so it could even serve as backup camera. I could swap the Q for a CL and a Sigma 24/2 without losing money. But here is the old question again, Q or CL. What's the answer in late 2022?

My pros and cons are:
Pro Q:
great image quality, I love all the images that I get from this camera
Image stabiliser
Macro Mode
Full frame
Con Q: 28mm

Pro CL:
uses the same lenses as the SL -> 24mm makes it 35ish, just what I'm looking for
backup body for the CL
Con CL:
no stabiliser
APS-C (is this even a con?)

Looking at this list, it seems that the CL would be the rational choice. The Q has more pros, but most I probably don't need. There is just the big fear that I will miss the Q despite the “wrong“ focal length and will just get it again.

There are also some things that I couldn't find out so far. How do the viewfinders compare? Battery life? Image quality of the CL probably hinges on the lenses, the Q lens is just excellent. What else have I forgotten?

Edited by Almizilero
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I started with the Q, added the CL but I found for slower and longer lens I needed IBIS/IS. My hands shake too much to run over 50mm on a CL, but that's my physical issue. So I sold the Q and later the CL and bought an SL2-s. Great camera and because I used full frame lens on the CL I was set, but found that was too heavy for me to lug around so I sold it and moved on to other systems. Now I bought an Q2. It's 47mp sensor allows me to crop to 35 and 50mm with enough MP for what I need from a carry everywhere camera. It's not my only camera but is my only Leica.

The other con on the CL is it's discounted so don't expect a CL2 later to move you lens and accessories to. Not a huge con since lots of people use discontinued Leica products. As long as what you need is available now you should be happy for years. Don't expect new APS-C L mounts lens to show up, but I used full frame Sigma lens on my CL as they are light and not very expensive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Driften:

I started with the Q, added the CL but I found for slower and longer lens I needed IBIS/IS. My hands shake too much to run over 50mm on a CL, but that's my physical issue. So I sold the Q and later the CL and bought an SL2-s. Great camera and because I used full frame lens on the CL I was set, but found that was too heavy for me to lug around so I sold it and moved on to other systems. Now I bought an Q2. It's 47mp sensor allows me to crop to 35 and 50mm with enough MP for what I need from a carry everywhere camera. It's not my only camera but is my only Leica.

The other con on the CL is it's discounted so don't expect a CL2 later to move you lens and accessories to. Not a huge con since lots of people use discontinued Leica products. As long as what you need is available now you should be happy for years. Don't expect new APS-C L mounts lens to show up, but I used full frame Sigma lens on my CL as they are light and not very expensive.

Thanks! Luckily, all those are none-issues for me. Except for the missing IBIS, I haven't used a camera without one in years, so that might show. But I won't be building much of a system with the CL. Since I have the SL2-S as well, I would only get full frame lenses and not invest in anything APS-C. So it shouldn't be a problem that the CL is discontinued. Like you, I'd use the Sigma C-line of lenses on the CL. That wouldn't make it much bigger than the Q, but more versatile. It could even be a gateway to the M-Mount, because I'm already thinking about using the CL with a manual lens for the smaller size. The Q2 is interesting for many reasons, but it would also mean a lot of extra money that I don't want to spend right now. So IF the Q has to go, it should be replaced by something in a similar price range. The CL plus one Sigma lens fits that bill. Any additional lenses or an M-L-Adapter would not be exclusively for the CL but for the SL as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the CL and a number of lenses, but switched to the Q2 earlier this year mainly because I wanted a simpler system (I have a SL2-S and film Leicas with M and LTM lenses). I have always been happy with 28mm, and I enjoy the near silent shutter, the OIS, the compactness for travel and the ability to crop (a bit).

I am now sure there will be no CL2, but I still see the CL as a perfectly acceptable camera and set of lenses. I had no problem with APS-C or the lack of IS, and although the Q2 EVF is better, the CL's EVF was never a problem to me. It has cracking lenses: I owned most of them at one time or another, but settled on the wide and standard zooms, the 35 (50 eq.) and the 60 (90 eq.). The two primes are stunning (and the 60 gives you close to macro). People also said the 23 (35 eq.)was excellent, but I had it too long ago and for too short a period to give my own opinion. The 18 (28 eq.) is probably the least good of the bunch, but it is designed for compactness, not the top IQ.

Edit. I found the AF Face Recognition on the CL to be better than on the Q2. It's probably because the Q2 is hunting for faces over a wide scene with a lot of pixels, and doesn't have the processing power.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both a CL with a few lenses and a Q2. Both get regular use, depending on where I’m going on a particular day. I took the Q2 on a three week trip to UK to simplify what I had to carry and it worked well in most instances. Or more to the point you shoot to it’s strengths and avoid its weaknesses. Will I replace it with a Q3? I would be in no rush to do so.

I know the CL is discontinued and there will be no CL2 but I like the way it handles and in particular like the 11-23 and 55-135 lenses. I could live with just the 18-56 as my do it all lens if I had to. This camera will be around until it can no longer be repaired.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to my SL2 gear I had a CL together with 3 Leica lenses as lighter alternative. And I really liked it. Because of discontinuation by Leica I sold it and bought a Q2.  And I am very satisfied with it - although it cannot replace the CL gear in all respects -i.e. tele and macro purposes. In this cases I have to use the SL2 in future. If focal lengths of more than 75 mm are often used and macro is a main point, I would take a CL If not or only the CL will be  used with the 18/56 and no other lenses, then my clear decison would be the Q2. I would like to add, that the CL lenses can be used together with a SL2 at lower but still acceptable resolution in APS-C mode. Same is valid with the Pana SR1 , No adviceable is that with the SL, because in this case the level of resolution ist low. And the Sigma FP L seems o be no alternative, because of some characteristics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's always best to try things. So I found a CL and Sigma 24/2 Combo and tested it against my Q. I liked several things about the CL. The form factor is great. It's nice to have the same button layout as on the SL. Great to be able to change lenses, but most full frame lenses are just teribly big on the CL (and I don't want to invest in APS-C lenses). I even underestimated how big the 24/2 still is. Even without a hood, it's still larger than the Q with hood. The CL feel very off with that lens, I don't feel confident holding it. A grip would be a must, which further increases the size. The image quality is good, but I liked the Q way better. the Sigma has a reddish tint to it and it just can't produce the clear look that the Q does so effortlessly. A Leica lens might help, but that was not the plan. And I noticed that I really got used to the IBIS. Lot's of blurry images with the CL.

I also noticed that I was thinking all wrong. I'm looking for a Q replacement because I'm not completely happy with 28mm. But the CL-Combo was a 24mm! On crop yes, so I get an image that is cropped to 35mm, but with a 24mm look. I can just crop the Q images to 35 and they look better. The image quality of the Q is so good that I can just use that Adobe supersize-feature and crop the hell out of it and it still looks good.

So while it would be nice to have the CL as a backup with the L-Mount, it didn't really work out as an everyday replacement for the Q. I should just give up trying to replace it :D . Maybe with an M later on, but for now, I should just remember how amazing every single image from that little devil looks and work around my issues with the focal length. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Almizilero said:

...I also noticed that I was thinking all wrong. I'm looking for a Q replacement because I'm not completely happy with 28mm.

I have both cameras, one complementing the other. I suggest you try the Sigma standard zoom lens, (28-75mm equivalent), which is excellent for general photography, and widely used by CL owners. Just search the forum for examples. Your Q is available, when extra speed or pixels are needed. They make an excellent pairing.

Correct colour to suit your preference,  and save as a profile to be applied to all Sigma shots. Colour variations are easily managed to satisfy your needs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Late to the party, but thought I would comment. I had a Q for a couple of weeks recently and loved the IQ and simplicity. 

But as much as I liked it, I didn't like being stuck with just the 28mm focal length.

Long story short, I found a CL bundled with the TL 18mm and TL 18-56mm lens at an awesome price.....so sold the Q. I've added 3 M mount lenses that I have adapted ( 2 x Voigtlander and 1 Minolta Rokkor ) and I love using the system. I find the Leica CL as easy to set up and use as the Q was, and the manual lenses are a joy to use. I don't even miss image stabilization that the Q and my former M43 system had built in.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just done the opposite. I sold all my CL equipment to fund the purchase of a Q2M. The Q2M is a great camera and I wanted to have the Monochrom instead as I am hoping it will replace my M246 and lenses eventually.

I found I wasn’t using the CL so much nowadays because of lack of image stabilisation.

 

rosie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...